 |
|
|
|||||
I spend most days in rooms where four generations argue about the same spreadsheet. Boomers, Gen X, millennials, and Gen Z staff the same executive teams, often guided by directors from a fifththe Silent Generation. Four different eras, four different mental operating systems, one quarterly earnings call. When leaders tell me, Weve got a generation problem, what they usually have is a self-awareness problem. A widely cited review of so-called generational differences at work found that many popular stereotypes dont hold up very well when you look at actual data on values and attitudes. At the same time, more recent research shows that age-mixed teams can outperform when leaders handle the friction with care. So, the data tell us two things at once: People from different birth years are less alien than weve been told, and they can be a strength or a liability depending on how leaders show up. After three decades recruiting and coaching leaders, Ive learned a simple rule: What you can see, you can shape. What you cant see quietly shapes you. How our eras built our habits Im a boomer. I grew up on a steady diet of show up early, stay late, say yes, sir. That wiring served me well in my time at the White House and later in boardrooms. It also produced a habit that took me years to spot: the urge to please. In hard conversations, Id soften the edges. Add extra words. Smooth things over. Younger colleagues didnt experience that as kindness. They experienced it as dodging. They wanted clarity, not choreography. Psychologist Jean Twenge, in her book Generations, shows how each cohorts habits grew out of the era that raised them: boom-time expansion, layoffs and divorce, student debt and purpose-driven careers, social media and permanent comparison. None of that is virtue or vice. Its conditioning. Trouble comes when we treat our conditioning as the gold standard and everyone elses as a flaw. The most freeing move Ive made as a leader was saying to myself, My boomer urge to be agreeable is watering down the truth. Once I named it, I could do something about it. A good first question for any leader is small and uncomfortable: What do people my age regularly praise me for that might secretly be wearing my team out? When senior leaders look in the mirror This isnt just a mid-career problem. Senior leaders wrestle with it too. Elon Musk, a Gen Xer, has spoken openly about his pathologically optimistic timelines. That belief that nearly anything is solvable with enough grit, iteration, and contrarian thinkingis one of the hallmark traits of the Generation X worldview. For Elon, is has helped drive rockets, electric cars, and ambitious AI projects, and it has also pushed employees into impossible deadlines when reality didnt cooperate. A classic boomer, Jamie Dimon, notes that his vigilance on risk is a strength, and he knows it can land as sharp or impatient in the room. Warren Buffett has explained in shareholder letters that his strong loyalty to managers sometimes kept him from moving fast enough to replace them when performance lagged. These leaders didnt erase their blind spots. They acknowledged them, adjusted, and built teams that were allowed to tell the truth back to them and accelerated performance and massive shareholder value creation. The same move is available to the rest of us. Caricatures versus real people Generational caricatures are easier than real work. Boomers as workaholics. Gen X as cynical. Millennials as needy. Gen Z as fragile. They make for good jokes; they make for bad leadership. A study of multigenerational teams found that most friction comes from mismatched assumptions about communication, career speed, and feedback, not from wildly different values. That lines up with what I see in succession conversations: People want to grow, feel useful, and be treated fairly, regardless of their birth year. They simply learned different ways to signal those desires. You dont need a grand theory to lead through that. You need a few habits that make your own lens visible to you and to others. 5 small moves to shrink the ‘generation gap’ Heres a list I often give to CEOs who are tired of the generational blame game: Run a shadow meeting review once a month. After a key meeting, ask one person whos at least 15 years older or younger than you: Walk me through how that meeting felt to youwhat landed, what didnt? Listen without defending. Add a two-question feedback round every quarter. Ask your direct reports: Whats one thing I should keep doing? Whats one thing I should adjust? No surveys. Just live conversation. Pair up for reverse mentoring. Invite a younger colleague to teach you one digital habit or collaboratio tool they rely on. In return, offer one story about a time you failed and recovered. Research on reverse mentoring points to gains on both sidesskills and understanding grow together. Narrate your intent. In tense moments, say aloud what youre trying to do: Im pushing hard here because Im worried about risk, or Im being quiet here because I want to hear others first. Youll be surprised how much misreading that removes. Pick one generational habit to bend. A Silent-era or boomer leader might deliberately leave the office on time twice a week and invite a younger colleague to walk out with them. A Millennial or Gen Z leader might choose one meeting a day where the laptop stays shut and the phone stays face-down. None of that requires a task force. It does require an honest look in the mirror. The real bridge across generations When leaders learn to notice their own blind spots and talk openly about them, something changes in the room. Silent-era steadiness calms Gen Z anxiety. boomer grit reinforces Millennial desire for purpose. Gen X realism ties these temperaments together. The bridge is not another app, policy, or slogan about generations. The bridge is a leader willing to see themselves clearly and invite others to do the same.
Category:
E-Commerce
Instacarts artificial intelligence-enabled pricing may be increasing the cost of your groceries by as much as $1,200 a year, according to a new study published on Monday. Instacart is an online grocery delivery and pickup service that allows customers to order groceries from local stores by using its technology platform, via app or its website, and then fulfills those orders through a personal shopper. The investigation from Consumer Reports and Groundwork Collaborative, a progressive policy group, found that some identical products were priced differently from one customer to the nextsometimes by as much as 23%. One company executive reportedly called the tactic smart rounding in an email between Instacart and Costco that Consumer Reports says was inadvertently sent to the magazine by Costco. The findings are based on data from 200 volunteers who checked prices on 20 items, in four cities, and found a difference in about 75% of those items in some of the biggest grocery and big-box retailers, including Costco, Kroger, Safeway, Sprouts Farmers Market, Albertsons, and Target. (Prices for the same products varied from as little as 7 cents to $2.56 per item.) Instacart, which previously disclosed its pricing experiments in corporate marketing and investor materials, said its shoppers are not aware that theyre involved in an experiment, but said the resulting price differences are small and negligible. “These tests are not dynamic pricingprices never change in real time, including in response to supply and demand,” an Instagram spokesperson told Fast Company. “The tests are never based on personal or behavioral characteristicsthey are completely randomized.” Instacart said the stores control the prices, and they work closely with them to align online and in-store pricing, wherever possible. “Each retailers pricing policy is displayed on their Instacart storefront, so customers always know when prices may differ from in-store and can easily compare prices across retailers before checkout,” the spokesperson added. “Just as retailers have long tested prices in their physical stores to better understand consumer preferences, a subset of only 10 retail partnersones that already apply markupsdo the same online via Instacart. These limited, short-term, and randomized tests help retail partners learn what matters most to consumers and how to keep essential items affordable.” As a result, a customer may see slightly lower prices on family staples such as milk or bread, and slightly higher prices on less price-sensitive products like craft beverages or specialty snacks, Instacart said.
Category:
E-Commerce
Human activity is driving climate change; thats a fact that more than 99.9% of scientific papers agree on. But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has quietly removed that information from a webpage explaining climate changes causes. Its yet another move by the Trump administration that downplays climate science. Trump has previously called climate change a hoax, repealed numerous climate laws, and has bolstered the use of fossil fuels, the burning of which are the main cause of rising heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. An EPA page titled Causes of Climate Change once began by directly noting that since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earths climate. Now, that page begins by stating, Natural processes are always influencing the earths climate and can explain climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. (The previous version of the website is still available via online archives.) The previous EPA web page above, noting human activity as a cause, and the edited version below. [Screenshots: epa.gov] A purging of scientifically accurate information Daniel Swain, a climate and weather scientist at UCLA, noticed the change earlier this week. It began when a weather communications colleague reached out to him about the EPAs Indicators of Climate Change section being offline. That section wasnt just one web page, but an entire subdomain that included data, maps, and detailed stories on certain climate change indicators like shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels. It was often used by experts, including Swain himself, to grab ready-made info graphics and other resources. Swain looked into that issue, and found that the link now redirects to a broken web page. Then he started digging into other webpages from the EPA. It immediately became clear that there had been a much larger scale, essentially, purging of scientifically accurate information from a large portion of the EPA public facing website, he says. The EPA also removed a sub page on climate change impacts that discussed events like floods and heatwaves. But even more concerning than certain pages disappearing, Swain says, was the change to the causes webpage removing the mention of human activity. That had been, not removed, but dramatically modified to the point where it is now false, he says. The move isnt necessarily surprising from the Trump administration, Swain adds. But he calls it a pretty clearly deliberate effort to shift the public facing view on formally authoritative federal agency documents, communications, and websites to align with partisan political priorities. The previous “Indicators of Climate Change” website, and the new broken link. [Screenshots: epa.gov] Its not exactly clear when these changes occurred, but the Wayback Machine shows the comments about human activity still on the EPA website in early October. While nearly all information about human-caused climate change has been scrubbed from the website, one stray reference to it remains, at the end of a section discussing how volcanic eruptions have previously released large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Volcanic particles from a single eruption do not produce long-term climate change because they remain in the atmosphere for a much shorter time than greenhouse gases, that section currently reads. In addition, human activities emit more than 100 times as much carbon dioxide as volcanoes each year. In a statement to the New York Times, a spokesperson for EPA administrator Lee Zeldin noted that the archives still existed, and said that the Trump administration is focused on human health over left-wing political agendas. This agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult, she added. (A separate EPA webpage, titled Future of Climate Change, does still point to human causes of global warming.) Humans have caused more than 100% of climate change The science on climate change is clear: Human activity is the cause. In fact, previous climate scientists analyses have found that humans have caused more than 100% of global warming since 1950. That’s possible because of the fact that earths natural cycles have actually slightly cooled the planet over the last century. Essentially, human causes have not only caused the warming that we’ve seen, but it’s also offset a bit of cooling that otherwise would have occurred, Swain says. Human caused warming is, for all intents and purposes, the singular cause of contemporary climae change, he adds. Disinformation and AI confusion There are other resources for accurate climate information that note human activity as its cause. But the EPAs move to remove that information points to a broader issue, in which the Trump administration is eroding credibility in government information and its institutions at large. The same thing has played out on the CDC and Health and Human Services websites, specifically concerning vaccines. To Swain, altering a page on climate change causes shows intent to deceive. They chose not to delete that page. They heavily modified it to the point of scientific incorrectness, he says. That is choice . . . and it is arguably something that is even more deeply concerning, because it shows a willingness, essentially, to lie, and to present information that is false. This move from the EPA could also have ricochet effects. Consider AI overviews and LLMs, Swain says. If they re-aggregate these webpages from the EPA, they may also regurgitate those falsehoods. The algorithm is not capable of differentiating truth from fiction, he says. The challenge is that it is getting more and more difficult to find consistent, reliable, and authoritative sources for this kind of information.
Category:
E-Commerce
As the Trump administration makes announcement after announcement about its efforts to promote the U.S. fossil fuel industry, the industry isnt exactly jumping at new opportunities. Some high-profile oil and gas industry leaders and organizations have objected to changes to long-standing government policy positions that give companies firm ground on which to make their plans. And the financial picture around oil and gas drilling is moving against the Trump administrations hopes. Though politicians may tout new opportunities to drill offshore or in Arctic Alaska, the commercial payoff is not clear and even unlikely. Having worked in and studied the energy industry for decades, Ive seen a number of discoveries that companies struggled to move forward with because either the discovery was not large enough to be commercially profitable or the geology was too difficult to make development plausible. Market conditions are the prime drivers of U.S. energy investmentnot moves by politicians seeking to seem supportive of the industry. Market fundamentals trump policy announcements The general decline in oil prices from 2022 through late 2025 has reduced the attractiveness of many drilling investments. And opening the East and West coasts to drilling may sound significant, but these regions have unconfirmed reserves. That means a lot of subsurface work, such as seismic surveys, stratigraphic mapping, and reservoir characterizationpotentially taking yearswould need to be done before any drilling would begin. Offshore drilling also faces enormous opposition. On the West Coast, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta have made forceful statements against any new California offshore oil drilling. They have said any effort is economically unnecessary, environmentally reckless, and dead on arrival politically in the state. California local governments, environmental groups, business alliances, and coastal communities also oppose drilling and have vowed to use legal and political tools to block them. There is opposition on the East Coast, too. More than 250 East Coast local governments have passed resolutions against drilling. Governors on both sides of the aisle, including Democrat Josh Stein of North Carolina and Republicans Brian Kemp of Georgia and Henry McMaster of South Carolina, have spoken out against drilling off their coasts. Drilling for oil in the Arctic region of Alaska is much more complex than in other areas of the country and the world. [Photo: Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement/Flickr] Arctic drilling is even harder Drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Beaufort Sea off Prudhoe Bay in Alaska would be a massive undertaking. These projects require years of development and are subject to future reversals in federal policyjust as Trump has lifted long-standing drilling bans in those areas, at least for now. In addition, Alaska is one of the most expensive and technically challenging places to drill. Specialized equipment, infrastructure for frozen landscapes, and risk mitigation for extreme weather drive costs far above other regions. These projects also face logistical challenges, such as pipelines running hundreds of miles through remote, icy terrain. Natural gas from Alaska would likely be sold to Asian buyers, who increasingly have alternative sources of supply from Australia, Canada, Qatar, and even the U.S. Gulf Coast. As production rises in those places, the entrance of Alaskan natural gas into the market raises the risk for global oversupply, which could depress prices and reduce profitability. Despite political support from the Trump administration, the oil and gas companies would need financing to pay for the drilling. And those loans wont come if the oil companies dont have agreements with buyers for the petroleum products that are produced. Major oil companies have withdrawn rom Alaska and signaled skepticism about attractive long-term returns. Trump has helped some In the first 10 months of the second Trump administration, the president has signed at least 13 executive orders pertaining to the energy industry. Most of them focus on streamlining U.S. energy regulation and removing barriers to the development and procurement of domestic energy resources. However, the broad nature of some of these orders may fall short of establishing the stable regulatory environment necessary for the development of capital-intensive energy projects with long time horizons. Those efforts have reversed the Biden administrations go-slow approach to oil drilling, reducingthough not completely eliminatingthe backlog of requests for onshore and offshore drilling permits that accumulated during Bidens presidency. Delays in permit approvals increase project costs, risk, and uncertainty. Delays can increase the chances that a project ultimately is downsizedas happened with ConocoPhillips Willow project in Alaskaor canceled altogether. Longer timelines increase financing and carrying costs, because capital is tied up without generating revenue, and developers must pay interest on the debt while waiting for approvals. Delays also lead to higher project costs, eroding project economics and sometimes preventing the project from turning a profit. Investment follows economics, not politics Unlike in some countries, such as Saudi Arabias Aramco, Norways Equinor, or Chinas CHN Energy, the U.S. does not have a national oil or gas company. All of the major energy producers in the U.S. are privately owned and answer to shareholders, not the government. Executive orders or political slogans may set a tone or direction, but they cannot override the fundamental requirement for profitability. Investments cant be mandated by presidential decree: Projects must make economic sense. Without that, whether due to low prices, high costs, uncertain demand, or changing regulations, companies will not proceed. Even if federal policies open new areas for drilling or relieve some regulatory restrictions, companies will invest only if they see a clear path to profit over the long term. With most energy investments costing large amounts of money over many years, the industry likely wants a sense of policy stability from the Trump administration. That could include lowering barriers to profitable investments by accelerating the approval process for supporting infrastructure, such as transmission power lines, pipelines, storage capacity, and other logistics, rather than relying on sweeping announcements that lack market traction. Skip York is a nonresident fellow in energy and global oil at the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Remember earlier this year when everyone on your feed was wearing bizarre shoes, like Maison Margiella’s ballerina flats with split toes and mesh ballet flats? Or when statement scrunchies were all the rage? Don’t feel bad if you missed it. Blink, and the trend was over. Over the past 15 years, the pace of fashion trends has sped up thanks to social media and fast fashion brands. But over the past five years, with the rise of TikTok and Shein, they’ve gotten out of control. Micro-trends pop up in a subculture of the internet, lasting for just a few days before fading into oblivion. It’s gotten to the point where many people have lost interest in fashion trends altogether, at least according to Stitch Fix, the personal styling service. Every year, the company culls through the data of its more than two million clients and gathers insights from the personal stylists who serve them, to predict future buying behavior. Two thirds of customers have expressed “trend-fatigue,” and are generally ignoring trends. “People are tired of trying to keep up with what’s in,” says Amy Sullivan, Stitch Fix’s VP of buying and private brands. This wasn’t always the case. Stitch Fix’s customers aren’t necessarily fashionistas, since they’re keen to outsource their clothes shopping to experts, but they do generally mirror the tastes of the broader American population. Over the past few years, they’ve requested garments that were on trend. After the pandemic, they were keen on “dopamine dressing,” which meant picking colorful, mood-boosting looks. Then, last year, they were into quiet luxury, the understated sophisticated look popularized by the TV show Succession. But this year, nobody seems to knowor carewhether there’s a single, dominant aesthetic. [Photo: Stitch Fix] Instead, Sullivan says they’re just requesting classic, versatile staple looks, like black tops and white button-down shirts. To prevent their outfit from getting too boring, they’re asking for statement pieces, like sculptural jewelry or colorful handbags, that add a hit of visual interest. Stitch Fix has surfaced the color “Chili Red” as a hue that will allow customers to add some spice to otherwise very basic looks. “Color is a way to bring neutral staples to life,” says Sullivan. “We’re seeing sales of red pieces go up, but they’re generally adding just a small pop of color to their outfit.” If you needed another piece of evidence that consumers are over trends, Stitch Fix stylists say that customers are inspired by the style of Jennifer Aniston and Anne Hathaway. These celebrities aren’t exactly known for their cutting-edge fashion: When they’re not on the red carpet, they’re generally wearing classic pieces in neutral colors. “Their style is very accessible,” says Sullivan. “They’re not as fashion-forward as some other celebrities.” [Photo: Stitch Fix] Pantone, the color expert, appears to have also recognized that the world is exhausted by the constant churn of trends. For 2026, it has chosen a shade of white called Cloud Dancer for its color of the year. It’s a hue that telegraphs a desire for blankness at a time when “the overstimulation of the internet is only increasing,” as my colleague Mark Wilson writes. For those of us who care about sustainability, consumers’ exhaustion with trends is an unmitigated good. For the past two decades, as trends have sped up, the industry has churned out more and more clothing. Brands like Shein produce low-priced, low-quality clothes that are effectively designed to be disposable. This flood of clothing is destroying the planet. Making these garments consumes natural resources and spews carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Most will only be worn a few times before ending up in a landfill. [Photo: Stitch Fix] One solution to this environmental catastrophe is for people to buy fewer clothes. A way to get there is for consumers to abandon trends and focus, instead, on purchasing staples when their budget allows. So Stitch Fix’s prediction is encouraging. But will our abstention from trends last? Have we finally entered a post-fashion-trend reality? Sullivan believes that’s possible. “Everyone is agreed that we want to invest in durable classics as the foundation of our wardrobe,” she says. “It doesn’t seem like we’re ever going back to a time when the fashion industry dictated trends that we all have to follow. And there’s something liberating about that.”
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] next »